So what then, you actually beleive a system that's equal to or a little greater than the ps3/360 somehow can't run the same things those systems can?

I'm pretty sure that neither you or me know the answer to that.

From my perspective though, it totally reminds me of a difficult client who wants something done that, while technically feasible, is just such a pain in the ass that you tell them no anyway.

There's a difference after all to something "running" and something actually running. Personally, I'd love for everyone to experience the Frostbite engine, if only to spoil the living crap out of people and get them to shy away from the Call of Duty series. I mean, I don't really care for graphics, but damn, when it's a night and day difference, it's hard to not consider it.

I personally see the lack of support from EA and Activision/Blizzard *cough* Activision *cough* as a really good thing for a system. That is just me tough.

I don't quite understand the logic that having less choice of games to play on a console is a good thing? If they release a bad game that you don't want to play, then don't play it, it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Nintendo has now twice in a row produced a video game console that is seriously lacking in horsepower compared to its competitors. You can only ride your "classic" franchises for so long before people get tired of playing the 400th iteration of Mario Party and want to play some Battlefield, or Crysis, or Killzone, or Halo, etc. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of older Nintendo games, but I've been seriously un-impressed with the last two consoles from Nintendo, because even though the Wii-U does have some nifty features like being able to play games on the controller while the television is occupied, they just can't keep up with their competitors in terms of visual quality. The Wii-U is just barely more powerful than the PS3 and the 360, and with the imminent release of the PS4 / XBox Infinity, both of which have hardware specs that are in a whole other league compared to the current generation, I don't think Nintendo will last much longer.

Nintendo has now twice in a row produced a video game console that is seriously lacking in horsepower compared to its competitors. You can only ride your "classic" franchises for so long before people get tired of playing the 400th iteration of Mario Party and want to play some Battlefield, or Crysis, or Killzone, or Halo, etc. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of older Nintendo games, but I've been seriously un-impressed with the last two consoles from Nintendo, because even though the Wii-U does have some nifty features like being able to play games on the controller while the television is occupied, they just can't keep up with their competitors in terms of visual quality. The Wii-U is just barely more powerful than the PS3 and the 360, and with the imminent release of the PS4 / XBox Infinity, both of which have hardware specs that are in a whole other league compared to the current generation, I don't think Nintendo will last much longer.

Well your lacking in the knowledge of the Wii U as it runs a 1.2ghz Trie core chip with 32mb of cach and while it may be slower then the PS360 chips in processing speed the GPU is 4 to 5 Generation newer with more ram in the system and as others have siad and myself GPGPu functionality so allot of CPU intensive task can be computed on the GPU and Games such as Trine 2 NFSU and some up coming games all run PC assets while adding more features. Thw Wii U disc size also helps a little since it holds 25gb of storage . so the Wii U is not really lacking in HP but Lacking in some Developers even trying to make a game for it .

Crytek already had a very good version of Crysis 3 running on the system running PC assets and stuff but EA canned it right before it was to go gold

Here is a Developer Quote on the Wii U source here well Site that source is linked to

Developers quotes - “The CPU and GPU are a good match. As said before, today’s hardware has bottlenecks with memory throughput when you don’t care about your coding style and data layout. This is true for any hardware and can’t be only cured by throwing more megahertz and cores on it. Fortunately Nintendo made very wise choices for cache layout, RAM latency and RAM size to work against these pitfalls. Also Nintendo took care that other components like the Wii U GamePad screen streaming, or the built-in camera don’t put a burden on the CPU or GPU"

“I can only assure that the Wii U GPU feature set allows us to do many cool things that are not possible on any current console. The Wii U has enough of potential for the next years to create jaw-dropping visuals. Also remember the immense improvement we saw on the PS3 and Xbox 360 over the years"

Developer talking about RAM latency in Wii U - "They put a lot of thought on how CPU, GPU, caches and memory controllers work together to amplify your code speed. For instance, with only some tiny changes we were able to optimize certain heavy load parts of the rendering pipeline to 6x of the original speed, and that was even without using any of the extra cores"

'Yerli: We did have Crysis 3 running on the Wii U. We were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of business support between Nintendo and EA on that. Since we as a company couldn’t launch on the Wii U ourselves — we don’t have a publishing license — Crysis 3 on Wii U had to die.'http://venturebeat.c...sCO6TDMg6VwY.99

There is nothing there that says EA was ever behind the project in the first place, so you can't definitively say they canned it. They simply chose not to pursue it.

'Yerli: We did have Crysis 3 running on the Wii U. We were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of business support between Nintendo and EA on that. Since we as a company couldn’t launch on the Wii U ourselves — we don’t have a publishing license — Crysis 3 on Wii U had to die.'http://venturebeat.c...sCO6TDMg6VwY.99

There is nothing there that says EA was ever behind the project in the first place, so you can't definitively say they canned it. They simply chose not to pursue it.

Yes they did Cann it because well guess what they dont want to make games for the Wii U cause they dont like Change and dont want to mess with the system and support it they are just lazy and Nintendo would never say no to something as big as Crysis coming to the Wii U .

Yes they did Cann it because well guess what they dont want to make games for the Wii U cause they dont like Change and dont want to mess with the system and support it they are just lazy and Nintendo would never say no to something as big as Crysis coming to the Wii U .

How can you cancel a project you never supported in the first place? This must be via some magic I don't understand. You're making the connections that make you happy when there's no data to support it.

How can you cancel a project you never supported in the first place? This must be via some magic I don't understand. You're making the connections that make you happy when there's no data to support it.

exactly they never supported it because thet didnt think the Wii U had the power to run such games and or engines or what ever ya wish to call it and Crytek showed them it ran well and prolly even better then PS360 and yet EA siad No because had they siad yes it show they was wrong about the system because guess what they claim Frostbite 2 engine ran like crap on the system but i doubt they tried since the cry engine 3 is far more robust